Conversion therapy
Executive summary
Conversion therapy — practices aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity — is banned in many places but remains contested in U.S. courts: more than 20 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., have laws restricting or prohibiting the practice for minors, while recent legal developments and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge put those bans at risk [1] [2] [3]. Internationally, authorities including the United Nations have called conversion therapy abusive or equivalent to torture, and dozens of countries have enacted bans or effective prohibitions [4] [5].
1. What conversion therapy is and why major institutions condemn it
Conversion therapy refers to methods that attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity; historically this included harsh physical interventions and today often includes talk therapies or religious counseling aimed at suppression or change. Major medical organizations condemn the practice and cite links to elevated depression, suicide attempts and other harms — a core rationale behind legislative bans [6] [2].
2. How widespread legal bans are — U.S. patchwork and global movement
In the United States the legal landscape is a patchwork: advocates count “more than 20” states that have banned or restricted conversion therapy for minors, plus Washington, D.C., but enforcement and scope vary by jurisdiction [1] [3]. Globally, by late 2023 and into 2024–25 dozens of countries had moved to ban or effectively prohibit conversion practices; some countries ban it directly while others limit medical diagnoses that would enable such therapy [5].
3. The central legal clash: free speech vs. professional regulation
The current, pivotal legal argument in U.S. courts—exemplified by the Supreme Court case over Colorado’s ban—is whether bans regulate professional conduct (health care standards) or impermissibly restrict speech. Several justices expressed skepticism at oral argument that states can forbid certain therapist speech to minors, signaling a conservative majority may be open to striking down such laws on First Amendment grounds [3] [1] [7].
4. Arguments from both sides
Supporters of bans argue states routinely regulate professional medical practices to protect minors and point to evidence of harm from conversion practices; Colorado and other states frame their laws as health-regulation, not viewpoint censorship [3] [8]. Opponents — including some therapists and allied legal groups — characterize bans as content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on counseling, arguing the laws prevent voluntary conversations and therefore infringe free speech [3] [6].
5. Recent developments that complicate the landscape
Recent court rulings and settlements have reshaped protections in specific states: some state-level bans have been limited or rendered unenforceable by litigation or settlements, and federal appellate decisions have affected where bans can operate; those changes mean counting “bans” can overstate real-world protections in some places [9] [10]. The Supreme Court’s October 2025 argument suggested a willingness to curb state bans, which would dramatically change the map if the Court rules against them [1] [7].
6. International and human-rights framing
Beyond U.S. litigation, international bodies have framed conversion practices as severe human-rights violations. The U.N. has reported that conversion therapy can amount to torture and has recommended bans — a frame advocates use to press for comprehensive prohibitions and for treating survivors’ harms as rights violations [4] [5].
7. What to watch next and practical implications
Primary near-term developments to monitor are the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in the Colorado case and consequent rulings that could limit states’ power to regulate licensed-therapist speech [3] [1]. If the Court narrows states’ authority, bans could be invalidated or require reworking as conduct-focused regulations; that would leave protections uneven and elevate enforcement and civil remedies as focal points [7] [2].
Limitations: available sources do not include the Supreme Court’s final ruling text or post-decision legislative responses. My account relies on the cited reporting and legal summaries above and highlights competing legal and human-rights perspectives as presented in those sources [3] [4] [2].